bascule

Nice, far better than my Hoffman Apparatus, which I built out of 3L bottles and plastic tubing :/

What does that have to do with the forcing response? Are you familiar with the concept of a complex dynamical system? The climate system is nonlinear and filled with feedback loops. There is not a direct correlation between increases in CO2 levels and CO2's radiative forcing, due to nonlinearities in both the carbon cycle and the climate system as a whole. Since you still don't get it, here's the graph modified to show the relevant time period: Can you explain to me how this graph doesn't corroborate the IPCC's argument?

I don't think SFN meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability

I'm not saying it isn't possible that some of those Bascules will deviate greatly from each other, but by in large the chaotic effects at the quantum level will fold back on the attractor (if I'm using that correctly), so that while behavior may be markedly different at small scales, we'll see little effect at larger scales. Our lives are not determined by the outcomes of individual waveform collapse events.

Then just read the abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009

I don't understand it well enough to comment, however it sounds an awful lot like Dennett

A Bayes classifier comes to mind... if you had a large enough set of papers flagged "loop" vs "string" vs "neither" to train it with...

While the success of OLPC remains to be seen, I'm a big fan of the concept, and of Negroponte in general

Actually it's because about 50 years ago was when the effects of other forcing inputs started trending downward (causing the afforementioned net cooling effect) while CO2's forcing response was skyrocketing upward: (yeah, only posted that image 5 billion times, but...)

But we're classical structures that resist being impacted by quantum indeterminacy

Well, I'd like to say Lee Smolin Hawking's probably a more realistic answer, given how many have read a Brief History of Time...

Well, there was that Kyoto thing...

This? http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/ Have a keyword list you want me to check? So... think this could be automated?

Someone should really make an automatic calculator for that

The brain seems to be a classical system. Intuitively my suspicion is that the brain's structure mitigates whatever random effects individual waveform collapse events may have on its higher level function as best it can.

Here's RealClimate's take on the 11 year solar cycle: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/ That would be helpful

If matter can't reach the speed of light, and even light can't travel fast enough to escape from beyond the event horizon, how could matter possibly be traveling fast enough to escape? Furthermore, that isn't really one of the "biases of blackholes" (whatever that means)... virtual particles can be boosted up to the level of the event horizon, where they are emitted as Hawking radiation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange So far it's just an "artificial chromosome", but he apparently stands poised to announce the creation of the first artificial lifeform. Insane.

Didn't the Michaelson-Morely experiment effectively rule out any sort of medium in which light travels?

How is James Burke's treatment of Darwin any different from what this teacher was doing? How is it different from Burke's treatment of other subjects where the church was wrong, such as heliocentrism? Bingo

According to recent observations, yes: http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8364 Different frequencies of photons travel at different speeds? Speeds other than c?

Let me just take this opportunity to reassure you that my mental picture of what's happening in the world of modern physics is nowhere close to reasonably accurate

For an excellent treatment of the historical ramifications of Darwin's theories I highly suggest everyone here watch episode 8 of James Burke's excellent series "The Day the Universe Changed", entitled Fit to Rule: Darwin's Revolution. Burke manages to remain cordial when addressing quite matter-of-factly Darwin's discoveries and the social revolution they kicked off. James Burke has always managed to quite delicately address the interplay between science and religion, and remains quite inoffensive while pointing out that scientific knowledge trumps a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Setting aside a literal interpretation of Genesis is not anti-Christian or anti-religion in any way. You might remember past threads I've posted on the matter: You might also remember this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21926 What is it this teacher is saying that hasn't already been said by the Vatican? However, by Pangloss's standards this Vatican cardinal and astronomer have decided to "declare that all religion is mere MYTH." To say otherwise is "pointless hair splitting"

Pointing out that the "biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted" is not the same thing as "declar[ing] that all religion is mere MYTH" What logical fallacy is that? The one you used above is called a strawman.

According to the OP: "A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted." So no, that's not what he did... When did he ever do that? You're comparing the historical significance of the discovery of evolution by natural selection to the political significance of abortion? No, and it seems clear to me you simply do not understand the historical significance of Darwin and the discovery of evolution by natural selection. Darwin's writings undermined the concept of an orderly, unchanging universe and with it the belief in the Biblical theory of creation. In the words of historian James Burke, the discovery of evolution by natural selection marks a "day the universe changed," as human reasoning and perception about the universe were forever altered by the discovery.